Follow by Email


Monday, September 12, 2016

Bad news: revisiting the psychology of Jill Stein supporters, American political dogma, how to deal with this, why I support Jill Stein somewhat alone, the common ground principle, & more

Before reading this article, you must watch the video below at least until 12:07.
And watch the full video below as well. If you think that Ry could possibly be racist, watch the entire playlist.

Revisiting the psychology of Jill Stein supporters, how to deal with this, & why I support Jill Stein somewhat alone.

More responses:

I came in hoping to get a productive discussion about a social issue about the American political psychology, & then it became a divisive debate about climate change and then an even worse debate about the holocaust, and then a whole slew of attacks.

Unfortunately, because no Jill Stein supporters came in to my defense or do so much as intervene to cool down and bring the situation under control (this is an example of how negative things get attention), & this was exactly the type of problem that I was originally talking about.

The individual who attacked me seemed to have a pretty clear violent double-standard, as you can see in the screenshots (I'm going to let the pictures say things for themselves).

I honestly don't know if this person is for real or if they're a shill or what, becuase I cannot believe the type of reactions and treatment I got.

This is an example of how polarized Americans have become in politics;

Just as the bigger problem is described in the video above, American political discourse has become more convoluted, less productive, less civilized, more violent, and overall more of all kinds of negatives.

Why is this occurring? I believe that this is occurring becuase, at least in the example of this the particular Stein supporter, still have the political dogma that Americans had for years.
While the video below does talk about American liberals, the explanation of tribalism actually applies to both liberals and conservatives.

So, from what I observed, what does this mean in terms of how the root mentality of many Jill Stein supporters changed now vs with Obama supporters? Sure, they picked up better values, but those values are only over the roots, & in terms of the down-to-the-dirt nitty-gritty, SEEMINGLY NEXT TO NOTHING.

My theory on why this is such as problem is that;
1. Humans are usually pack animals. Many of us actually want to be a member or part of a group of some sort;

2: in our "education" system, we are taught to accept things without question,

and 3, the corporations & banks exploits both of these by using the mainstream media (you do NOT need to be a fan of Ron Paul to see the video below).

And I have a bad feeling that the Stein movement have been, or at least could be hijacked by leftists who have self-esteem, self-control, discipline, emotional maturity, & a slew of other character flaws who got through school but question little to nothing when it comes to ideas that are not already prepacked & given to them;

This is why I'm now disassociating with Jill Stein supporting groups becuase they overall lack the principles of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets, and often do not understand economics and in some cases don't want to understand economics, instead opting for a bigger government in the economy.

For more details, watch the video below. I'm not doing this in opposition to the FSP and it may look like it's about a different issue, but in reality, this issue is very similar to what I'm facing now.

So while I might post on a Jill Stein supporting community or maybe Facebook page, I otherwise disassociate with the rest of the movement until they get their act together & either get people to be less dogmatic (which is the root problem. I am not asking that they change their minds but rather question everything more & be accepting of new information) or kick out those who make the movement look bad & kick out highly partisan extremists like the individual who attacked me so people would feel less alienated & more willing to join. 

If you are a Jill Stein supporter and you hate what you're seeing here, then try to help change this. You will not change this by sending me p*$$$ant messages to get me to shut up; I will not shut up, and thousands of people have already read my blog and more, sometimes in the dozens, read every day. You can thank the individual for screwing things up for your image & giving me bad news.

You can change this by showing people how to have a civilized and reasonable discussion, and calling out those who smear your public image. Yes, this is a more difficult solution, but it's more productive and better for everyone. Sure, we may disagree, but can it be civil and productive about it?

Now, even though I might've talked about some divisive issues, I wish not to divide, especially over minor issues. We have common ground on a few majors.

Can we all agree that all of the wars the U.S. government is involved in right now is wrong, and that we should at least stop with the interventions? If yes, good. This is the most important issue.

Okay. What if we're both anti-war. Would you agree that sending out armed men in blacked out uniforms and automatic weapons (SWAT teams) to bust people for marijuana is at least a waste of taxpayer's money and law enforcement resources, and at most, is wrong, and that drug usage should be treated like a disease and not a crime? If yes, good; oppose the failed drug war, de-regulate drugs, and change how government agencies treat people who take drugs.

We're both anti-war and anti drug-war. Can we agree that the privately owned federal reserve is a fraud?

We're both anti-war, anti drug-war, and anti-Federal reserve. Can we agree that the big bank bailouts was a scam to keep billionaires float?

We're both anti-war, anti drug-war, anti-Federal reserve, and anti-bank-bailouts. Can we agree that the NDAA and Patriot act are both wrong, and that indefinite detentions and assassinations, and spying on civilians without warrants or even probably cause is wrong?

We're both anti-war, anti drug-war, anti-Federal reserve, anti-bank-bailouts, anti-NDAA, and anti-Patriot act. Can we both agree that TPP/TTIP and NAFTA are both scams to help corporations stay wealthy? Good!

And above all, can we agree that the use of force, threats, coercion, and so on and so forth, except for the defense of self and/or others, is wrong? 

(Also read When is violence justified? | StormCloudsGathering & Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle, the latter article of which gives detail, insight, & information not presented in the former article.)

Now there are a few other issues (economicsgun rights, climate change, etc) that I wish that we can agree on. But those are not as essential as the other issues I brought up.
I highly recommend checking out the Facebook page The Common Ground Movement, which actually does better than I do when it comes to promoting common ground.

Here's another article that relates to a very similar issue; Should you join the Facebook group "Worldwide false flags" or follow Amber Amy, along with division in the truth movement, distrust of blogs, comedy & humor replacing reason & respect, American stereotypes, & Facebook alternatives.

False dichotomies & the guilt by association fallacy. 

One of the tactics used by the individual who attacked me (I'm not naming their name becuase this is not intended to be a personal attack) was guilt by association, & he asserted that libertarianism was a fascist ideology seemingly solely on the basis that Murray Rothbard questioned the holocaust and that Ludwig von Mises had influence on the libertarian movement in the 20th century.

I do NOT agree with all of Mises' or Rothbard's opinions. However, to say that Rothbard is politically a fascist for his historical views is simply wrong, is an example of the false dichotomy paradigm, & contradicts his anti-war views.

A big fallacy on the part of the individual who attacked me was the "all or nothing" type of absolutism. They clearly assumed that I was all-around pro-privatisation & deregulation, even though anyone who has really talked to me & looked at my content would know otherwise. Heck, you can still be a libertarian on other issues without supporting complete privatisation & deregulation (I myself want public roads, emergency services, definately government printed money, etc).

The type of "all or nothing" logic that the individual used is like putting in some the strongest glass shattering subwoofers that money could buy in your car & having the volume controls being either 100% or off with no other setting whatsoever. What I mean by that is that there is no gray area or middle ground.

If you believe in the non-agression principle at heart (not that I advocate following it purely or without question), then in a sense, you are a libertarian becuase you wouldn't use force against others if they respect the rights of others, even if you disagree on say, economics.

To add to this, I've seen that many people perceive that libertarians & people with libertarian leanings are more intelligent (, even in cases of disagreement (

Another thing that I'd like to address is how the person who attacked me can actually be, in a sense, similar to their arch enemies in the sense that they use aggression & violence against those who disagree with them & outside of defense.
It has already been demonstrated that Neo-Nazis & Social Justice Warriors (not calling this individual one, which would be wrong in this case) can sound pretty similar if you take a few specific words out.

So, if this person is not bluffing about killing "brownshirts" on sight (seemingly anyone with different enough of an opinion) (in this case the threats alone are a crime, & for icing on the cake, they threatened a minor, but I doubt that Google+ would do much about it), then they are little to no better, & in some cases, worse than their own enemy.

Even Martin Luther King promoted non-violence when he & the people he was trying to help were facing violence! He held up even better than what I probably would've.

And the way that the individual treated me presented an intellectual level on-par to the types of jingoistic collectivists who says crap like "Kill all the Muslims", "All Muslims are terrorists", or "It's the Jew's fault" or "The Jews did it" or something in that manner. That's what I am trying to get across about collectivism; a lot of people are collectivist without realising it, perhaps in part becuase of self-exceptionalism.
In the case of the person who attacked me, he called me a "bigot", & accused me of being intolerant. 
Not to mention how someone can get onto how socialism is tied with communism (there IS a difference!) & how anarcho-socialist is an oxymoron.

What is definitely contradicting about the person is their claim to be an anarcho-socialist, but their belifs about how to treat those who disagree with them contradicts what it means to be an anarchist; let people do as they please.
And things can actually be deadly if these types of characters ever get real power;

So how would I somewhat bluntly sum up what I think of the person who attacked me? Someone who is extremely hypocritical, philosophically contradicting, closed-minded, a closet authoritarian, & possibly has personal issues relating to power & solving disagreements (the latter 2 are common traits among bullies, who themselves often, or at least sometimes have becuase they often know few positive attributes about themselves).

Yet another problem I have is that they imply believing that all types of libertarians are the same, when in reality, there are not.

And it's a complete myth that libertarianism is inherently right (or left) wing.

Even when it comes to my enemies, I acknowledge differences. For example, there are many groups of white nationalists and some different types, as explained in the article A tale of two cities.

It is possible for me to have a civil discussion, as you can see here, and here. I'll also admit that, when I was younger, I was kind've a quasi-socialist neolibertarian. But now that I'm older & after I've listened to Ryan Dawson's work & Michael Rivero's articles ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS! & So You Think Military Intervention is a Good Idea?, I became seriously anti-war & pro free-markets.

If the person wishes for me to take down the pictures, then they must issue me a full apology, retract every statement made before, & promise to not use violence except in the defense of self &/or others.

The horseshoe theory on the divisiveness of Conservatives & Trump supporters & Liberals & Clinton supporters:

Americans seem love being divisive in politics, & seem to flaunt & embrace ultra-partisan labels.

Here are a few examples in memes:

Image credit: .
Image credit: .

As you can already see in the 4 meme images above, it's common for people to make memes on divisive issues & take an ultra-partisan, stereotypical stance on it. If you want me to show more cases (ie the people I've communicated with), just comment below & I'll be more than happy to do so.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are more than welcome on this blog! Please feel free to share your 2sense below.

ANYONE can post a comment here! There is not even word verification to hassle with, either!

By the way, if you know or have an idea as to why people rarely comment on this blog, please let me know!

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge